In the days following the horrific attack on America and the subsequent war on Islam, the reaction from the world community was predictable. The Europeans spent a day or two wringing their hands and telling everybody how shocked they were, and then immediately went back to their anti-American agenda. The Asians have been sympathetic, but unhelpful. Similarly, the South Americans have been able to muster very little more than empty words of support, given their weak economy. The Africans, by and large, are unaware that things such as New York City and airplanes exist. And the reaction from Muslim nations could most aptly be described as one of restrained glee.

Through it all, our lone ally in this struggle has been the nation of Israel. This is a battle between good and evil; it is a struggle of right versus wrong. There is no "middle ground" to occupy in this conflict, and Israel is the only nation that has decisively sided with Good. Unfortunately, Israel has her enemies as well, and she has no greater enemy than the Nazi party.

So what do you do when you discover that one of your co-workers is a Nazi?

It all started innocently enough. I am a software engineer, and my development team had just finished the work for a major release. We wanted to change the main color in our GUI from LightBlue to SteelBlue, and our 6.0 release incorporated this modification. This was a lot of work; we ended up having to replace about 613 hardcoded references to "LightBlue." We also fixed a bug where right-clicking on the status bar would cause the GUI to core dump. Incidentally, you hear a lot of talk about how Linux (which is the OS we're using) is better than Windows, but when was the last time you heard of a Windows machine "core dumping?" Hopefully, our 7.0 release will consist of a port to Windows so that we can put an end to this nonsense.

Anyway, to celebrate this milestone, I decided to take my software team out for dinner. We went to a steakhouse which, despite the fact that it serves alcohol, is a pretty decent place to eat. The food was delicious, and after we had finished the meal, we remained at the table and discussed various topics. The talk inevitably turned to politics, and one of the subjects that came up was the Palestinian war against Israeli women and children. We talked about counter-terrorism measures, security procedures, and the ridiculousness of the Koran. It was at this point that things went south.

One of my developers started talking about Israel in a manner that, quite frankly, stunned me. He mentioned that Israel was erecting settlements in Palestinian terrortories (I'm sorry, I meant "territories") and ventured the opinion that these settlements were illegal. He repeated Islamic rumors about Israeli Defense Force (IDF) troops blocking pregnant women from getting access to hospitals, which resulted in stillborn children. He spewed out ridiculous racial innuendo about Israeli troops spray-painting threats on Palestinian billboards. He spoke negatively about the actions of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. In short, he levied so many accusations and aimed so much anti-Semetic hatred against the people of Israel that it became clear that he was allying himself with Israel's worst enemy.

It was at this point that I realized the truth: a Nazi walked among us.

There was a man named Adolf Hitler who held similar convictions, and it took a bloody world war to get rid of him. And here I was having lunch with his (apparent) genetic clone. It amazes me that speaking against Israel in such a derogatory and spiteful tone remains legal in the United States, particularly in light of recent events. Oh, you can be sure that I behaved diplomatically; through all of this hate speech, I nodded politely and even managed to keep a smile on my face despite the fact that I wanted to take this guy outside and blacken a couple of his eyes.

When we got back to the office, I decided that I needed to keep a close eye on this man. I have an SGI O2 workstation with a webcam. I waited until everybody left and then repositioned the webcam so that it looked in on his cubicle; this was tricky and required me to run wiring through the ceiling tiles, but the result is that I can constantly surveil this man and make sure that he is not participating in such activities as reading Mein Kampf or meeting with officials of the German government. I installed an Ethernet sniffer so that I can track his Internet traffic; if he reads any Nazi Web sites at work, I will have irrefutable proof that I can present to my employer as grounds for dismissal. I've found that he spends lots of time perusing CNN.com, which is evidence of his left-wing, National Socialist (Nazi) leanings.

My wife and I have decided to take turns watching his house. She takes the day shift, while I'm at work; she tirelessly watches their property in our minivan with our two children. She has claimed to have seen a Nazi flag hanging on his living room wall during the brief moments that his front door is open, though she admits that this might be a Rusty Wallace poster. I watch his house at night. Several times I have seen unknown persons go into his residence; how am I to know if these people are not officials from the German or Soviet governments?

One thing is clear: I have a Nazi, a thick-eyebrowed cunting Hun, working with me. How should I deal with this? I believe that I have enough evidence to get him fired if I were to go to my management. However, I'm not sure; in today's lawyer-friendly environment, is anecdotal evidence enough? I'm considering taking a tape recorder to his office, hiding it in my suit coat, and trying to get him to make some of his anti-Jewish comments so that they can be recorded. With this, I should have no problem getting him fired.

Beyond that, I am this man's direct supervisor; though he has always been very efficient and thorough, I could invent false claims of bungling and shoddy work. This introduces obvious moral and ethical questions, but the greater principle ought to be the guiding principle; is a man who is so blatantly anti-Jewish deserving of gainful employment at a moral code shop? I believe the answer to that question is an unequivocal "no." With this in mind, I am willing to take whatever steps are necessary to get him out. I will not tolerate anti-Semetism on my team, and as far as I'm concerned, the end justifies the means. A terror supporter is not somebody I want on my team.

It amazes me that speaking against Israel in such a derogatory and spiteful tone remains legal in the United States, particularly in light of recent events.

A comment on this. In Europe, several countries, for example Germany and France, have "anti-Nazi" laws, that supposedly forbid Nazism within the country. But, if you take a look at the prevailing attitudes in these countries, you'll find widespread hatred of Israel among the population.

This proves a point I had long suspected: Germans are, by and large, criminals, even by their own standards.

This should of course come as no surprise to people, like me, who have come to discover the principle of linguistic determinism, and thus know that some peoples, like the Germans, the Japanese or the Belhare, because of the structure of their language, are more prone to authoritarianism than others. But it is good to have even more striking confirmation of this.--em
Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

You have no idea (none / 0) (#9)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 09:15:28 AM PST

what Nazism is.
But you will know soon. Its easy to gather from your article, that you are straight on your way to it.

and cogratulations you managed to offend about a hundred million people (half the population of the US) to be criminals.

publications like yours about the german language were very popular during the Nazi regime to proof the inferiority of jewish citizens in a pseudo-scientific way (particular by social darwinism). Fortunately they are now forbidden by anti-nazi laws.
Greetings, a criminal
andreas huf

it's appalling, the amount of disinformation spread on this website. if Germans criticize Israel, it's because they're opposed to the practices and policies of the Israeli government. Hitler never won a legitimate majority in any election; he had no popular support in Germany until the people were subdued into supporting him.

hell, I'm opposed to the practices and policies of the Israeli government. I'm a criminal then, I suppose, though I hardly subscribe to anti-Semitism.

I think that Germans in the last 20-30 years have been able gradually to overcome the shame of the war, as the last of the old leaders of the regime--those actually responsible--meet prosecution and people who were actually there get too old to remember much of it. so why are they suddenly getting all this insubstantiated flack for nationalism--it's the Dutch and the French with resurgent right-wing political movements.

I've heard of the book before. maybe I'll check it out. I'm not any avid student of Germany or its history, but it happens that I speak a bit of the language. that tends to result in some careful study of the culture.

As such, extended considerations while in Germany have included, "which do I prefer, light or dark Hefeweizen (wheat beer)? or should I just go with a Pils? and what about that sausage? why in the hell do they eat these two-foot long sausages?"

I was hoping I was going to read something interesting, well argumented, but no.

The only thing you have exposed here is not that you have a developper who is a nazi. You have just told us that you think that anybody who doesn't stand blindly besides Israel is a nazi.

But I still have some hope: that you and your wife will seriously, without failing, go on watching this guy, 24 hours a day, your wife while you're working, and you the rest of the time. If you do this, I am at least assured that you two won't have any more kids who could inherit your genes.

One last thing: it's your application that had a core dump, not Linux. On Windows, there is no core dumps, only Illegal Operations, Exceptions at 9b008AXWHATever, and so on.

Eugenics and Nazism (none / 0) (#5)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 05:08:58 AM PST

But I still have some hope: that you and your wife will seriously, without failing, go on watching this guy, 24 hours a day, your wife while you're working, and you the rest of the time. If you do this, I am at least assured that you two won't have any more kids who could inherit your genes.

The Nazis favoured this sort of negative eugenics too. Tell us, what are your views on Israel?

Big difference. (none / 0) (#8)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 07:39:08 AM PST

Nazis don't hope and don't make peculiars. They generalize and want to be sure.

Israel? Don't love it, don't hate it. I think it has a right to exist, and more, a right to live in peace. I think the same thing about a palestinian state.
And while I think terrorism is innaceptable, I do not think Israel is always right.

And one more thing, for those willing to judge my position, I am European, and worse, French. And if I believe what I can read on most American sites, and we know American media is the best and just tells the truth, I am a citizen of the most anti-semitic nation on earth. I wonder why Bush didn't put us French as prominent members of the axis of evil.

You yourself are now making an unwarranted generalization about Nazis.

Was every Nazi anti-Semitic? I doubt it. I bet most Nazis were motivated, not by hatred of Jewish people, but by love of the Volkswagen.

Was there something special about the German people during Hitler's rule that made them susceptible to supporting a party that committed such heinous acts? No. They were just like we are today. The surest way to put ourselves on the road to that society is to convince ourselves that it can't happen here and now.

Today's Nazis aren't called Nazis. They're called Republicans.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

I'd suggest (3.66 / 3) (#4)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 04:21:40 AM PST

getting on with your fucking work, citizen. Hardcoded references to colours? I'm no programmer, but what the fuck do you think you're playing at? Even my son knows how to use global variables, which are both variable and global.

Stop wasting your time spying on your co-worker. America doesn't like tattle-tales. Leave the spying to the big boys.

With any luck they will have to upgrade the 30Gb drive already dedicated to me.

Dear seventypercent (3.00 / 2) (#6)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 14th, 2002 at 05:57:02 AM PST

I hope you've managed it meanwhile to get rid of your communist co-worker. (http://www.adequacy.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/11/20/131313/36)
You must have, because your paranoia has found another unguilty victim.
...Or are you just a troll, who copied his comunism story (the stories are quite similar, aren't they?) and replaced communnist by nazi?
let me make a suggestion for the next time:
whats about:
moslems
homosexuals
asians
anarchists
catholics
pot smokers
and if we wait a bit, YOU will manage it to use Jews as well (because they have a long tradition of been victims of paranoid facists)

I hope you've managed it meanwhile to get rid of your communist co-worker.

That I have. For about a year, I left copies of various correct-thinking publications laying in his cubicle (i.e., WorldNet, The Weekly Standard, Focus on the Family, etc.) I don't think that he ever found out that it was me, but it did have an effect on him. His work output declined, his political outbursts waned, and he constantly appeared to be tired. Not long after that, he resigned and accepted a new job in Europe (surprise, surprise.) Now he's on the other side of the Atlantic with his blood brethren. I may not have been able to convert him, but at least I got him out of there, which is the least that my family and I could do.

You must have, because your paranoia has found another unguilty victim.

Beg pardon? "Unguilty?" If you had heard some of the things that this butcher said about Israeli "military incursions" and United Nations "resolutions" and the "plight" of the Palestinian "people", you would not so wantonly toss around words like "unguilty." This guy ought to have a swastika tattooed on his forehead. The Communist is gone, and if there is any justice in the world, this Nazi will soon be behind him.

...Or are you just a troll, who copied his comunism story (the stories are quite similar, aren't they?)

Bingo. The stories are quite similar, aren't they? And that's the whole point. There are many regular Adequacy.org readers who, like myself, are members of the moral community. And the point of all this is that we see more and more of these leftivists (Communists, Nazis, etc.) infiltrating our previously-secure institutions. The stories are similar because these people are popping up with alarming regularity, and if we are to preserve the moral foundation of the United States of America, we must act in a principled and just manner, such as the strategy that I have outlined above. I do not apologize for this, and no correct-thinking person should.

--Red-blooded patriots do not use Linux.

As a spelaeologist... (none / 0) (#26)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 08:13:20 AM PST

I have spent the last 45 years in the States, hunting for the moral foundation of the United States of America. I came sadly to the conclusion that though having more knights than King Arthur's court, such foundation is not in the United States, the said knights not having the slightest idea where is that foundation they are willing to preserve.

Israel? Palestine? I'm getting tired of spelling (none / 0) (#79)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 09:18:29 PM PST

Just so you know, all the crap over there is complete bullshit. The Palestinians were kicked out of every place they've ever lived, as have the Israelis. The israeli military is still trigger-happy from DEFENDING themselves against the muslims, and are, as such, brutal mo-fos.

Now, as for taking palestinian territory, I don't understand why WE are allied with israel. Any other time one country moves in on another, we go in and tell everyone to chill out: "We don't approve and have bigger guns, so just cut that shit out."

The palestinian people deserve a country, just as the israelis did in the 50's. But the truth is, until the palestinian gov't-pro-tem can get control of is watch, there's no reason for it to be in power.

Granted, the problems between muslims and the rest of the world is in their original code of law, however, the great majority of muslims are much like the great majority of catholics: "We don't apporve of the old ways, and we wish the fundamentalists would just fucking croak. They just make us look bad."

Osama Bin Laden = Jerry Falwell? Not in magnitude, but certainly in annoyance. I just simply can't STAND hearing fucking preachers. They're almost as bad as advertisers (at the very least, preachers have a cloak of belief around them. It seems a bit more altruistic that way).

(no actual quotes were used in this post. Quotation marks are used to simulated hypothetical comments. They are backed up by actions and/or conversations I've had with muslims and americans in general. No monkeys were harmed in the writing of this comment.)

more entertaining even than leftists getting inflamed is the weirdos on the right getting delusional. question is, is this guy just a humorist down on his luck and short on material (thus replacing "Communist" with "anti-Israel" and "Nazi"), or is he a uncreative nutcase hellbent on defending Israel? maybe he <I>is</I> Israeli--never been to the U.S. in his life.

How does the fact that you don't agree 100% with the actions of the Israeli Government make you a Nazi?
That's just ignorance.
I don't agree totally with the actions of the US Government -am I anti-capitalist? A dangerous communist?????

And saying that the "end justifies the means" is exactly how terrorist organizations justify terrorism, suicide bombings etc.

how it is that he is ignorant. So frequently is this word misused that I have begun to see it as little more than filler space when an argument is scrambling for content.

The humbling truth that you must accept is that you actually had nothing to say. You had a gut reaction, a visceral response, and since you had no explosives on hand with which to slay innocent civilians, you hit your keyboard. The keyboard, after all, can't fight back.

It is ok to be wrong. Nobody will ridicule you for that. However, it is a fool's gambit to try to pass off an accusation of "ignorance" as a rebuttal. If you're going to be wrong, at least put some effort into it.

"If you don't agree with EVERY FUCKING THING we say you're a communist, Nazi, blah blah blah. Anyone who disagrees with you in anyway shape or form regarding some misinformation you present is anti-"whatever gets pulled out of your ass that week".

I live in a country where it is my patriotic duty to hold an opinion of my and beliefs of my own. It's is my duty to speak my opinion in regards to the actions taken by the government.

I seriously suggest you (talking to Americans) take time to read the Declaration of Independence and the US Consitution.

...the biggest club do not need to be the sharpest tool in the box. It can be a real problem when you have a thug with intelligence - perhaps Jefferson, Madison, et al really ought to get more credit then they currently do.

First off I at no time said that the two documents were to be upheld as the greatest in the world. However, the freedom of to hold your own opinion is own that is granted in them. They are also granted by [insert whatever deity here].

The simply fact of the matter is, is that some many people believe that if anyone's opinion differs, even slightly, from their own they are anti-[insert this weeks bullshit here].

The problem with a number of people is that they believe that everyone should believe exactly as they do no matter how idiotic or misinfromed they are.

I have a right to hold my own opinion in regards to any subject. Everyone does. Anyone who believes that everyone should simply believe whatever crap flies out of their mouth are called extremists, radicals, the Christian KKKoalition, and fucking morons.

...between having a right to hold any opinion and having a 'patriotic duty' to hold any opinion. Let me elaborate for you.

Whilst you have a right to express the opinion that the world is round, that God does not exist, and that communism is bad, and microsoft is evil. You are not bound by patriotism to hold such opinion. In fact by being patriotic you should hold the opinion that - the world is flat, God exists, communism is bad, and lunix is the devil's spawn.

To further assume that your betters in government have any wish to hear your opinions is grossly impertinent.

Walwyn, (none / 0) (#23)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 15th, 2002 at 04:51:56 AM PST

I'd be interested to hear why you think computer operating systems are up there with religion and politics.

your betters. Because there you are in between elections supplicating yourself to the altar of taxation. Pleading for hand outs. Ohhing and ahhing at their little pecadillos. Nodding sagely as TV pundits drop tidbits of gossip from the table of the great and good. Wagging your tail and salivating when they pat you on the head and tell you how important your opinions are to good governance.

And every four years, glory be, and hallelulia on high, off you go and make that difficult choice for Tweedledee or Tweedledum. Should it be Nike and Reebok, or Reebok and Nike, such a choice to make.

I don't go pleading for handouts recognising that as I am gainfully employed I won't get anything from government. Indeed it seems that my function is to have my wallet raped to fund the lower classesautomobile and intoxicant habits. Perhaps you consider thesepeopleyoursuperiors but not I.
Well, maybe the last one - I fear the lizards.

Paul McCartney and the other secular humanists of the 1960's did more to destroy free speech in this nation than any other group. Certainly more so than Joe McCarthy (who, history has demonstrated, was largely right about the seventy-three card-carrying communists in the state department. Oh, but I suppose the fact that they were indeed shown to ACTUALLY POSESS CARDS IDENTIFYING THEM AS MEMBERS OF CPUSA means nothing to you liberal types. Facts, and all, meaning nothing in your cosmology exorcised of the horrors of a loving God.)

What the secular humanists did -- and what most liberalist/terrorist groups are trying to do today, in the post-11/9 era -- is to bring a fetid veil of "political correctness" down over the American mind. They do this to prevent the free flow of ideas, to prevent people from discussing the real dangers of the terrorism those selfsame liberals condone.

I bring a challenge for you -- yes, even you, someone hiding behind his anonymity -- and all the other liberals and Muslims who read the above post with sympathy, to come up with EVEN ONE THING McCarthy said that was wrong. Just try. Then, if you have the character to admit your mistakes, I challenge you to compare McCarthy's role as a solitary protector of a free America with that of Paul McCartney and the rest of his ilk. What was their motto? Oh, I remember.

"All you need is love."

Just try telling that to the people who died in the World Trade Center.

-------
You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

When was the last time you saw a Unix machine with the Blue Screen of Death? The BSOD, and the "This program has performed an illegal operation..." thing is the same kind of thing as a core dump in Unix.

Of course, as I'm sure you know, when you get a BSOD or a "Illegal Operation" it wipes the computer's hard disk completely, destroying all your work. In Unix, when it dumps core, you can just restart the program you were using and continue where you left off.

When you get a "BSOD" it means that <a href="http://www.microsoft.com">Microsoft</a> in all it's glory has discovered that you a unix/lunix user who is trying to hack the windows GUI, so it cancels your actions, and rightly so. Though the BSOD or Illegal Operation dialogue does NOT wipe the hard disc, other wise you couldn't reload the computer, generally all that happens is you have to hit the "Enter" Key or restart you computer to allow it to ease the anger expressed when it is used by a lunix "1337 H4x0r". If you don't like the software that defines America, mabye you should go back to the Soviet Union...oh wait, that failed, just like your sub-par, open source operating system.

Your government is doing the same things that it insisted were evil and wrong when the Commies did it 30 years ago - locking people up without trial, taking away the rights of citizens, etc. But it's all OK because they're "stopping terrorism". Yeah. Just like the Communists were "stopping capitalism". You saw how well that worked.

I think I'll just stick to living in the UK, where it's safe to eat the food, drink the water, and no-one crashes planes into tall buildings. You can wait over there until your own Iron Curtain closes.

Just because you live in a sub-par Euro-trash country doesn't mean you have to take it out on the greatest country in the world. And we don't have an "Iron Curtain" if we did we couldn't leave to urinate publicly on your country's national monuments. In light of all this anti-america BS from foriegners, i propose we change Adequacy's slogan to "News For *American* Grown-ups." mabye then we won't be bothered by the current population of nazis and latent homosexuals.

Please give way (none / 0) (#52)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 02:18:24 PM PST

To the glorious American in all his shining superiority. You, blind citizens of Earth, be humble and kowtow.

That is ... (none / 0) (#54)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 02:58:04 PM PST

..exactly why we love you so much all over the world. And as a latent homosexual, I assure you that I am ready to fuck you anytime you want.

I don't much care for your sodomy tactics, i'll stick to american, church-approved, vaginal intercourse, and i'm relativly sure you are another brit, in which case i also don't want to catch a nasty STD from your crooked and diseased teeth.

Don't you have a problem? (none / 0) (#57)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 03:53:15 PM PST

Church-approved, vaginal intercourse just happens during a short period every 9 months.

The irony is, of course, that the controversial AQ slogan does say what you suggest, but it omits the actual word "American" because the AQ staff are even more bigoted and nationalistic than you are. You, at least, know that other countries exist.adequacy.org -- because it isn't

Your food isn't safe to eat. Your streets aren't safe. You can't do anything without fear of being sued.

You haven't got any health care. Well, you do, but you have to pay for it yourself! What does the government spend your taxes on?

Your laws are slowly strangling you. No-one wants to go to America, because you arrest people and lock them up indefinitely without trial. If you can't afford to bribe the judge, you'll go to jail.

Your country is dying on its knees, and it's your own government that's killing it. Go and exercise that Second Amendment right that all you Americans seem to love so much. That's what it's there for. Oh, but make sure they don't call you a terrorist....

Well, in response to the question what does our government spend taxes on, mainly kicking your country's ass. And everything in our country is safe, with the exception of a few certain foriegn nazis and communists.

Air travel is the safest mode of transportation in any country, including the US. Despite what you insult happy foriegners think, we have almost no plane crashes in this great nation. And the only place you see people running around with guns with bars on windows is in the Inner city ghetto where all ma' homies pop caps in whitey wit der nine, not in true america. I'm going to put "ghettos" on my "To Nuke:" list that im submitting to the president in a few months.

We don't really have anything like ghettos in Scotland, but we do have some pretty scummy bits. If I sent you some GPS co-ordinates, could you add them to your list? We can start with Greenock.

Don't bother with Greenock (none / 0) (#72)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:42:09 AM PST

There will be no more Greenocks when he finished with Scotland, which is on the list already. You don't imagine he would forgive you wearing skirts, and pretending having invented the whisky, which is evidently American. Such a good thing, such a God thing, too good to be the creation of some foreigner.

And... (none / 0) (#71)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 11:37:25 AM PST

Schools?

Breaking news! (3.00 / 1) (#62)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 03:53:56 AM PST

Miracles do happen!
From our correspondant in ...What's the name of the damned hole again?

In this one great nation under God, there is a little town gloriously conquered over those Mexican bean eaters (to my surprise, we have something in common: the Rio Grande!) during our great march to the West, fullfilling our Manifest Destiny (why the hell the government hasn't done anything yet about that ocean limiting our destiny?) we have met young HB who miraculously found the reason and the solution to one of the greatest problem in this God fearing land.

BW: Tell us how it happened.

HB: Oh, I was alone playing with my friend Dick at Grandpa's house when I found the old binoculars. I look trough it and bam! I saw the world as everybody should see it, with a lot of details. It helped me see, and understand, a good bunch of things I was previously ignoring.

BW: What did you see?

HB: The world is a whole mess, except here in America. The reason is that America is full of Americans, while the rest of the world is plagued with foreigners.

BW: And ..??

HB: Well, we know all that is good comes from America (beer, coca-cola, McDonald's, Ford Chevy, Smith and Wesson, etc), and all that is bad comes from those foreigners. They hate us because we are good. They sneak into this country where everything would be safe, except for those foreign nazis and communists. And that is the explanation.

BW: ???

HB: You agree with me about the safety of this nation. Well, we don't have native criminals. If and when we are unsafe, it's allways because of some foreigner. This great nation is the first in everything, and we are the first in the number of prisons and the number of prisonners, thanks to the best police force and the best judicial system. Our jails are full of foreigners.

BW: You have brilliantly demonstrated the reason. Now what is your solution?

HB: Death penalty for all of them. Empty our jails, send all those foreigners to some place like Iran, or Irak, or Palestine, or Scotland (I have heard the damned faggots wear skirts!), or France (I can't believe such a place exists), or Afghanistan, and nuke the place. Rapid, economical, sensitive.

BW: But, the rest of them, the rest of the world?

HB: Sincerely, we should nuke everything. No more foreigners, no more nazis, no more communists, no more danger. Please tell the President.

HB went to do whatever he had to do, happy to have modestly contributed to a better world. I took the binoculars he had left there, looked, and didn't see anything. There were at least two centuries of dust on the lenses.

"Of course, as I'm sure you know, when you get a BSOD or a "Illegal Operation" it wipes the computer's hard disk completely, destroying all your work. In Unix, when it dumps core, you can just restart the program you were using and continue where you left off."

Computer illiterate people should not be registered here. "Wipes the entire Hard Disk Completely?" Go buy a vowel, or seriously, at least a fucking clue.

Okay, it seems that some people here need to get some words straight.
Nazism, by the very basic definition, is a belief wherein you hate Jews.
The Israeli Government is basically, the government of the country of Israel. Hence, Ariel Sharon is the Prime Minister of Israel.
Jews, is the term given for people who practice Judaism as a religion.
There is a very big difference between the Israeli Government, and Jews. Like I said, the Israeli Government is the government of the country of Israel. The country of Israel, is a country that is comprised of PEOPLE. Some Jews, some Arabs, etc. etc. They are not comprised entirely of Jews.
Also, there is a difference between hating the Jews as a race or as a people and disliking the political actions of the Israeli Government.
Thus, your office mate, upon making it clear that he dislikes the political actions of the Israeli Government, ISN'T a Nazi, but rather a person with a certain political view of the Israeli Government.
Personally, I also don't like the recent actions of the Israeli Government under Ariel Sharon with regards to the Palestinian territories. But does that make me a Nazi? No. Why? Because I don't hate Jews.
In conclusion, your officemate isn't a Nazi, but your recent actions almost qualify you for one if only they were targeted at a Jew. Spying? Conspiring to get him fired? Sheesh. All for what? because you think he's a Nazi? Ignorance may be bliss but it won't get you anywhere.

Christ, and you Americans even wonder why the rest of the world dislikes you so much..

The Israeli government likes to keep Israel religiously pure, i believe the percentage of the population that is jewish is somewhere around 98%, so you are a liar, and due to your pro-nazi tactics are now yourself turning into a nazi, or a communist, either way the american government is now tracking you down and preparing to punish you with much vengeance and gusto for your deeds against humanity.

Religious purity or not, the political actions of one government doesn't represent Judaism as a whole. Likewise, disliking said political actions doesn't represent disliking Judaism as a whole. Politics and race are two different things. Like I said, just because someone thinks that Ariel Sharon's tactics against Palestine is wrong, doesn't make him a Nazi. It just makes him a person with his own opinion about politics.

His own opinion (none / 0) (#109)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 06:11:53 PM PST

Sharon's own opinions got him elected by a landslide at the beginning of last year, and kept his approval rating extremely high. Pretending that Ariel Sharon is one isolated right-wing hardliner may help you to pretend that the jews in Israel really are a lot like you, but it isn't a view with any basis in reality. Ariel Sharon is prime minister because that is what his people want. If you dislike his political views, then you dislike the views of the majority of Israelis. This does tend to indicate a certain amount of disaffection with the jewish people. You seem to be saying, "I like the jewish people, I just wish they were a different sort of people." It's a short step away from simply saying that you have no sympathy for the jews.

As the last federal election in the United States proves, the fact that Ariel Sharon was elected does not mean the majority of Israelis share his views.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

He was elected by a landslide (none / 0) (#122)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 04:58:22 PM PST

And has maintained an approval rating above 70% ever since. Would that mean that a majority of jews share his opinions, or at least approve of his policies, do you think?

Enlightened by some articles I had read on Adequacy, the one and only site for news for grown-ups, knowing that anybody opposed to Ariel Sharon's view was a Nazi, or a commie or whatever is the worst in the world at that very moment, I cast a brand new eye ( left the old one in the States) on the political scene. And it is very sad to say that there is in that blessed country a nest of the most dangerous nazis on earth.

The most dangerous? Would you ask. Yes, dear readers, the most dangerous, because they disguise as Israelis, as Jews. And in fact, most of them are Israelis and Jews.

Yahweh have mercy upon us! I couldn't believe my eyes (sorry I mean my eye, the brand new one), I couldn't believe my ears. Who would imagine, even under the light (or the shadow?) of an historical precedent where we have seen a Jew betraying another one, and which one, for some change, who would imagine, dear readers, that Ariel Sharon could have an opposition?

To have entered a discussion on the current state of affairs in their nation without once considering their point of view. Almost a century of complicated history has been written since Israel was created as an independent state, and was instantly invaded by five neighbouring Arab nations. Maybe you craven leftists should look into it before you start wringing your hands over the actions of the current Israeli government. I assure you, you cannot gain a workable understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation from the headlines of western newspapers.

No, I don't hate jews. I just don't like what Ariel Sharon is doing over there in the Middle East. The Jews may have been persecuted for over two millenia, but that doesn't justify Ariel Sharon's actions. I have considered their point of view, and frankly, it doesn't cut it.
The only thing Ariel Sharon is doing is lowering Israel to the level of its persecutors.

Uh-huh, uh-huh (none / 0) (#48)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 08:31:56 AM PST

In that case, please explain your understanding of their point of view. My belief is that there is no justification for holding either side to be the villain (or the victim) in this situation, but apparently you can justify that sort of sensationalist pigeonholing. I'd love to know how.

I never said that the Palestinians were the victim, nor that the Israeli government was the villain. If you READ what I wrote, all I said was that Israel's recent hostilities weren't justified just because they've been persecuted. I never said that it was okay for the Palestinians to go suicide bombing nor did I say that it was okay for the Jews' persecutors to go on persecuting them. So basically, if you READ what I wrote, we're actually agreeing in saying that there's no justification for what either side had done to each other.

No, you're still wrong (none / 0) (#113)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 07:39:46 PM PST

There is a justification, for both sides, and that's why they're fighting. It's actually insulting to both cultures to overlook this.

What does Sharon have to do with anything? (none / 0) (#77)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 04:55:59 PM PST

Sharon is an agent of colonial practice. The practice goes far back and transcends individuals. Just as the Germans are culpable for the Holocaust, Israelis are culpable for the cleansing of Palestine. Quite simply, Israel will survive Sharon's death unaffected. Powerful historical and social forces are at work. You cannot try them in a court of humans, although if you are an American you will do so and not realize you have failed. Ideas are too linear to describe them, although if you are an American you will dredge up 18th Century Liberalism, again, and sedate the rest of us groan up Adequists with its incoherent rhetoric of Man vs. Monolithic Government in the palm of the Tyrannical Leader.

Your 'argument' is pathetically weak. To say, "If you don't hold my point of view, you obviously don't understand the situation," and then to leave it at that is the worst kind of cowardice. Well, maybe not the worst kind. Maybe not even the second- or third- worst kind -- but it is cowardice nonetheless.

Oooh, it's all so complicated! How complicated -- how convoluted a thought process do the facts have to go through before they are mangled into something that whitewashes Sharon? Do you have to recite it, like catechism?

All he said was that he disagreed with the actions of Sharon and the Israeli government. From that you extrapolate that he's never considered Israel's point of view? From that you extrapolate that he hates Jews? Get over yourself.

To answer the one point you did make: Let's think about the creation of Israel. The first Zionist Congress states that their goal is "to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine." They get their wish, carving Israel out of a predominantly Arab region. Their Arab neighbours attacked. Gee, I wonder: If the Palestinians stated as their goal the creation of a Palestinian state in Palestine and tried to create such a state out of what is now Israel, would their Israeli neighbours attack? Oh, wait, I forgot: That's exactly what happened. The difference is that Israel has had big supporters in both cases.

Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are innocent in this conflict. They each have plenty of blood on their hands.

Is "a workable understanding of the Israel/Palestine situation" any understanding that allows you to condemn the heinous actions of the Palestinians but endorse the heinous actions of the Israelis?

In conclusion, I will now disavow my subject line. There have been only two people in my life who I knew were Jewish, and they are both among the finest people I know. I have never known any Jew I hated. If you are Jewish, I can only assume that you intend to rectify that situation. If you're not, I apologize to everyone that is for wondering whether you were.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Duh (none / 0) (#59)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 06:27:40 PM PST

That's exactly what I was saying. There are no villains and no heroes, because it isn't a melodrama, though it has been treated as such in the west.

Just as a side note, Israel was created through a partition of British land (which, at that time, already housed a very significant number of Jews). The analogy to modern-day Israel is simply not valid.

I would also like to expand on the claim that Israel "had big supporters in both situations." Let's not forget that in 1948, it was a damn miracle that Israel was recognized by the UN - in fact, the opposition was so overwhelming that the vote was expected by many to fail.

Today, Israel's support (though big, I grant you) stems only from America. By contrast, it is hounded by a large number of inefficient and highly biased organizations composed partly of hate-mongers, partly of idiots who need a cause. The United Nations are a prime example. The Red Cross, which granted Palestine's request to recognize the Red Crescent on Palestinian ambulances, yet for years denies Israel a red six-ended star. The latter case is especially interesting, considering alleged Palestinian plans to use fake ambulances in suicide bombings. And of course, Canada, years ago a fine country but now run by cretins - a country that sometimes considers its only purpose to contradict the US and make as if it's economically and socially independent.

A very significant number of Jews perhaps, but still a small fraction of the population.

I didn't know that about the red cross, crescent, and six-pointed star. That's interesting.

I am a Canadian, and I certainly do not feel like my country considers its only purpose to contradict the U.S. -- it doesn't contradict the U.S. nearly enough, in my opinion. On the contrary, I feel like Chretien is sucking Bush's dick.

No country is economically independent, but I agree that Canada's economy is exceedingly dependent on that of the U.S. -- it's the same economy, in my opinion. I don't know why that's relevant, though. Socially, though, the difference between Canada and the U.S. is like the difference between night and day. I don't know why that's relevant either, though.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

A small fraction of the Middle East, certainly, but of Palestine? That certainly depends on the definition of small.

Really? Where do you feel more contradiction is necessary? As for Chretien, he is a moron and a bastard in all too many regards.

My comments about Canada are only relevant as pertaining to the unfounded (in my opinion) hatred of the US. But while we're on this tangent -- as a Canadian who spends an approximately equal amount of time on either side of the border, I find the cultures to be quite similar. Obviously we won't compare Ontario to, say, Texas, but Ontario and New York? Certainly.

I live in Calgary, and have been to neither Ontario nor New York. Except for airport time passing through, I've only been to the U.S. once, and that time was spent in Arizona. That visit, combined with the dialogue I've had with Americans I know well, has given me the following impression of American society: There is an insidious culture of indoctrination and conditioning intended to turn Americans into unquestioning patriots. Of course, Tucson is probably not America's most cosmopolitan city.

Calgary, on the other hand, is Canada's most metropolitan. <laugh>

I feel that the American response to September 11 was inappropriate. It was a war of retribution, not justice, and I believe Canada's role is to promote the rule of law. For example.

As to the fraction of Palestine that was Jewish, I'm taxing my familiarity of the whole situation. I'm sure the fraction was much larger in 1948 than it was in 1897. I think the reason it was larger was because there was a campaign to give the Jews a homeland in Palestine, and so there had already been a lot of Jewish immigration to Palestine by 1948.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

There are ethnic Jews, as you correctly acknowledge when you recognize "the Jews as a race". Those who practice the religion are called Jews as well, but they're also called "practicing Jews" for some reason that defies all logic. Most practicing Jews are ethnically Jewish as well.

Anti-Semitism is prejudice against Semites, especially Jews; hatred of Jews would fall into this category. Nazism and anti-Semitism are related only incidentally. Nazism has more to do with fascism than it does with anti-Semitism, even looking in the context of history. Some highly-placed Nazis (Adolph Hitler comes to mind) hated Jews, and because Nazism was so fascist, they were able to steer the course of an entire country to the extermination of the Jews. There is no doubt in my mind that other Nazis were also anti-Semites; I'm sure there were many. That does not mean that Nazism and anti-Semitism are one and the same thing.

All that having been said, having a particular political opinion towards the actions of the Israeli government has more to do with Nazism, which is a political ism, than does anti-Semitism. However, an evaluation of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that is critical of the Israeli government's actions doesn't warrant the term Nazism. In point of fact, I believe it warrants the term Nazism less than does an evaluation that is in favour of Israel's actions.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

I don't think 'Nazism' is a term that could properly be applied to either group. However, Israelis want to maintain the status quo and Palestinians want to break it. The Israelis are in power. Nazism is closely related to fascism, and there is no fascism without the power of policy enforcement.

There is no objective point of view.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Obviously, there are anti- ... well, there must be people who hate Jews among the Palestinians. There must also be people who hate Israelis. However, I believe their actions are motivated principally by politics and desperation, not hate. Their actions are intended to bring about a political goal.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

So we can infer that the majority of Israelis and Palestinians probably want to live without getting shot or blown up. However, the political goal of the Israeli government is only the protection of its citizens, whereas the political goal of Arafat's government and Palestinian terrorist groups seems not only the creation of a state, but also the complete destruction of Israel.

The terrorists do not want peace -- otherwise, why would their attacks precede and/or follow nearly every major peace initiative? And if the "legitimate" Palestinian leadership wants peace, why wouldn't it accept the highly profitable Camp David accord, where the Israelis all but surrendered on all major points of dicussion?

oy vey (none / 0) (#182)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 03:11:53 PM PST

And why aren't you out hunting after the real Nazis then.

And what about being anti-American like you? If American was another word for Jew then you would be a Nazi.

Hmmmm (5.00 / 1) (#41)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 02:15:12 AM PST

Judging by the comments of the apparently highly "perceptive" people of this community, it would appear that

a) You don't have a sense of humor
b) You are stupid

(this does not apply to everyone, obviously)

If you honestly took the amusing and creative article displayed above seriously, I cannot help but lean towards thinking (b).

This is not a flame, it really isn't. It's just sad to see an obviously humorous piece generate such an onslaught of cliche "serious" feedback.

I've gone post modern lately and now cant see the (none / 0) (#43)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 16th, 2002 at 04:06:51 AM PST

redneck posts as anything other than trolls. I dont know the person typing the stuff in and hope that they are not that stupid and are just joking - but I've got no faith that this is ussually the case.
<P> Think I'll just disappear up Schrodinger's cat's arse.

Wouldn't it be ironic that a website that purportedly gives "news for grown-ups" puts, on its frontpage nonetheless, a joke?

Probably.

I'm not dismissing the chances that this was a joke, but I'm not dissmissing the chances that this was for real either. There are far too many stupid people in the world for this NOT to happen.

It IS ironic... for a whole other reason. (none / 0) (#66)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 08:41:13 AM PST

>I'm not dismissing the chances that this was a
>joke, but I'm not dissmissing the chances that
>this was for real either. There are far too many
>stupid people in the world for this NOT to happen.

Oh please...

A few snippets from the piece:

"I waited until everybody left and then repositioned the webcam so that it looked in on his cubicle; this was tricky and required me to run wiring through the ceiling tiles, but the result is that I can constantly surveil this man and make sure that he is not participating in such activities as reading Mein Kampf or meeting with officials of the German government. "

"My wife and I have decided to take turns watching his house. She takes the day shift, while I'm at work; she tirelessly watches their property in our minivan with our two children. She has claimed to have seen a Nazi flag hanging on his living room wall during the brief moments that his front door is open, though she admits that this might be a Rusty Wallace poster. I watch his house at night. Several times I have seen unknown persons go into his residence; how am I to know if these people are not officials from the German or Soviet governments?"

This guy is serious? Riiight.

Yes, there are many idiots on the internet, and yes, sometimes they hold convictions that may be hard for a "normal" human to believe. But what we have here, ladies and gentlemen, is humor at its purest. To those who think it might even begin to be otherwise I would suggest to pray that they fall into category (a).

>Wouldn't it be ironic that a website that
>purportedly gives "news for grown-ups" puts, on
>its frontpage nonetheless, a joke?

It's ironic that most people claiming to be adults took the above literally as a child would. It's not only funny, it also has a not-so-hidden message that any self-proclaimed "adult" should be able to see. IMHO.

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
Hitler was a Right Wing Conservative.

That's a nice webpage, but there's one error on it (none / 0) (#73)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 17th, 2002 at 02:14:23 PM PST

That webpage makes only one serious error: it states that Hitler was Conservative, when in fact Hitler was a left-wing Liberal.

We went to a steakhouse which, despite the fact that it serves alcohol, is a pretty decent place to eat.

I found that sentence very revealing because those of us who worship mighty Allah are opposed to alcohol consumption. This statement leads me to believe that you are perhaps a mole for the PLA, go commit your terrorist acts elsewhere my friend, your cover is blown.

I'm thoroughly entertained, and I think the article's brilliant. I mean, there's not a statement in it I can agree with, as a healthy blue-blooded American, but it just seems like good-natured humor, if only offensive.

what worries me is that some people take the article seriously, either reacting to it so violently or following up on certain strains of its logic. lighten up people, and take a look at multiple facets of the Israel/Palestine conflict. look at the history and the religions involved, from multiple perspectives. don't make judgments based entirely on what you hear in the news, unless you read a wide variety of news publications. try to get something resembling legitimate information--this is basically what most people are lacking, the facts. the rest just lack reason.

what's ironic is that I never made a factual statement in my comment; it was all argument. none of the replies made any significant factual statements either, excepting the debate over what a theater review is (duh...). Indeed, as I read more and more of this website I descend further and further into a land of innuendo and borderline extremism... the borderline between twisted sarcasm and frighteningly disproportionate fallacies of logic.

where do you draw the line? how do you distinguish between sarcasm and unreason? is there any value to a website that espouses views so absurd, it's well nigh impossible to see anything other than humor in it... until it actually looks as if other people are taking it seriously, and you start getting scared?

The ambiguity arouses me. If porn were not so well hidden on the internet, perhaps I would not have to rely on Adequacy to get my juices flowing -- but I do. Such auto-erotic fodder the world has never seen.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Shove it up your ass, Mr. Satirist (5.00 / 2) (#92)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 18th, 2002 at 12:50:53 PM PST

While it's unfortunate that most of the people who comment here are too stupid to tell satire from their own behinds, this doesn't change the fundamental fact that I'd rip out your intestines and strangle you with them if I ever got to meet you.

Are you under the impression that satire exonerates you from the responsibility of accounting for the fraudulent myths that you perpetuate? Oh, how wish that terror accusations of Palestinians were as ridiculous as you suggest. Unfortunately, Israeli civilians -- the very women and children -- find you proved wrong almost every day.

I've faced anti-Semitism on two continents and several nations. Coating it in a humorous sugar pill doesn't absolve you, you walking shit factory.

Thank you for bringing this up. So many of the so-called "serious" writers on this site are really trolls counter-advocating the opposite viewpoint. Which makes this article all the more disturbing! Why, in God's name, would they write this in support of the palestinian terrorists and Al-Qaeada? Yassir Arafat and the rest of the anti-semetic semites want nothing more than to destroy the only democracy the Middle East has ever seen. They arm infants, for crissake!

People who speak out in favor of the Arab mud-peoples deserve death. A swift, Zyklony death.

-------
You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

<p>who's advocating terrorism? indeed, who's advocating the Palestinian cause? and who's the satirist here? none of these refers to me, but I'm assuming it's my entrails that were referred to in a useless threat. the million-dollar question: what good is violence, whether directed at me, Israelis or Palestinians?</p>

<p>what's tragic about the Middle East conflict is that there are no easy solutions, but both sides have long thought differently. Extremists of both Israeli and Islamic stripes have long seen the obliteration of the problem--people unlike themselves--as the only solution. </p>

<p>violence, no matter the target, is not viable as the overarching theme to any solution (as racism and religious biases never are)--that is the primary principle through which I view the Middle East conflict. </p>

<p>oh, and sorry if I would be so crazy as to enagage in "counter-advocating the opposite viewpoint" (double negative aside). healthy debate leads to greater understanding of any issue.</p>

riiight (none / 0) (#106)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Jul 19th, 2002 at 08:40:33 AM PST

Nay, tis not your entrails I was referring to, but those of the author of the article, also the satirist. This is why my comment was posted as a new thread rather than a reply to yours.

My bowel-directed threats simply reflect my resentment that what seems to be the main focus of this article (the piece referred to as satirical, for your understanding) is to introduce more anti-Israeli fabrications -- to use the humorous form, which I respect and enjoy, to escape the responsibility of objectively evaluating the situation. This is not mere humour -- it's sick propaganda.

sorry. your comment wasn't clear. and someone had replied to your comment with apparently much the same interpretation as I took, except he was saying something to the effect of regretting how "trolls" do nothing but "counter-advocate." I'm now too lazy to look up the actual quote.

as for whether it's humor or not, I'm more inclined now to agree with you, but only given the overall context in which the article is couched. I detest racism (anti-black, -Semitic, -Arab, etc) in principle and in practice, but I grew up surrounded by it in Kentucky--I can see humor in it; it's simply a part of my cultural background.

of course I've never seen first-hand anything truly tragic resulting directly and obviously from racism. that would naturally alter my evaluation of racism as "funny," if you will.

> I detest racism (anti-black, -Semitic, -Arab, etc)
> in principle and in practice, but I grew up
> surrounded by it in Kentucky--I can see humor in
> it; it's simply a part of my cultural background.

That's a really cool attitude. It's neat that people of all cultures can learn to get along, no matter how crazily our backgrounds diverge! :) This is especially true of the back-woods folk I've seen in such documentaries as "Deliverance."

Well, my friend, all you have to do is look at the promised land today. Islamists and Arabics want to integrate Israel, not realizing -- or not caring -- that doing so would make the Jews a minority in their own country. For what are the Jews without their racial purity, untainted by the greasy savagery of Earth's browner folk?

No, Yassir Aerofat and his terrorist ilk truly are indeed directly and obviously perpetuating racial tragedy. Every settler family killed is an act of racist oppression. Bank on it.

Not to mention that the Arabics, of course, hold a near-monopoly on the world's oil supply. This makes them a shifty, wealthy class of semites, with a shadowy religious conspiracy that reaches worldwide (Al Qaeba) and the end goal of reclaiming Zion.

Indeed, a more apt name for "Al Qaeda" would be "The Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy." I suggeset that all supporters of the Jewish people should promote the use of that term. It will help clarify the evil of the Arab cause, and will thus aid the Jews' cause to live in a world without defamation.

-------
You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

That's a really cool attitude. It's neat that people of all cultures can learn to get along, no matter how crazily our backgrounds diverge! :) This is especially true of the back-woods folk I've seen in such documentaries as "Deliverance."

thanks. you may not be aware of this, but there are urban areas in Ky, that is, we're not all "backwoods folk." but as far as that goes, racism is not the same thing as cultural prejudice--i.e., racism assumes divergent genetic backgrounds, which most people wouldn't ascribe to Kentuckians. except for the legendary "Blue People of Kentucky," who are historically so inbred that they have blue skin.

Islamists and Arabics want to integrate Israel, not realizing -- or not caring -- that doing so would make the Jews a minority in their own country. For what are the Jews without their racial purity, untainted by the greasy savagery of Earth's browner folk?

the only real solution to the world's racial conflicts is that everybody fuck everybody else, trying as hard as possible not to match one's own race to that of one's (many) partner(s). I'm neither Jewish nor Arabic nor of any particular race beyond Anglo-Saxon, I couldn't give a flying hoot about the Jews and their purity. not that any rational Jew, Arab, or Anglo cares either.

No, Yassir Aerofat and his terrorist ilk truly are indeed directly and obviously perpetuating racial tragedy. Every settler family killed is an act of racist oppression.

There's no moral difference between the Israelis and the Palestinians. What surprises me is simply that we would pay either group any mind at all. Let them obliterate each other in their cycle of violence. or change if they will.

You make an excellent point. However, I say, why stop at racial boundaries? We need to eliminate interspecies boundaries as well. That's why I've embarked on a campaign to impregnate as many sheep as humanly possible, as my personal effort in the war on anti-Sheepism. Unfortunately, to date, 'as many sheep as humanly possible' is zero sheep, as there's something about the species boundary that makes it exceedingly difficult to have fertile offspring. However, I consider my efforts to be a pilgrimage of pleasure, and I assure you I will not tire in my voyage of discovery.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

It's very kind of you.... (none / 0) (#121)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 01:21:47 PM PST

...but we already knew the true meaning of your sig.

brilliant. (none / 0) (#123)

by Anonymous Reader on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 05:34:08 PM PST

wonderful idea. But I think we're missing the point here, which is that the Jewish übermensch is the final expression of the human ideal.

as such it would behoove us to ensure that all future reproduction derives from the genes of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu and Abraham (he wasn't really Jewish, but everybody loves him, right). so somebody write these guys a letter, tell 'em to get started.

it might also be beneficial to engage in some degree of species-ism, at least while we get started. sheep don't exactly exhibit the ideal personality traits for the little progeny. how about tigers for speed and violent energy, gazelles for gracefulness and delicacy, maybe camels for recalcitrance and obstinacy. and of course something that flies. in any case, who doesn't have sexual fantasies about fucking tigers?

For what are the Jews without their racial purity, untainted by the greasy savagery of Earth's browner folk?

Israel isn't about racial purity, as you'd know if you'd ever met an Indian Jew (or, for that matter, a Falasha, although they certainly do face some racism within Israel. Nonetheless, they were airlifted in, in case you've forgotten, and they're blacker than any Palestinian.)

If the Jews have no state, they live at the suffrance of the other nations of the world. Lots of those nations hate the Jews and want to kill them or make them fifth-class citizens. Are you seriously claiming that the concept of a Jewish state is inherently racist?

> Are you seriously claiming that the concept of a
> Jewish state is inherently racist?

Good Lord! Of course not. Israel is predicated on racism no more than any other nation that expels those of a specific race in order to create a majority of another race is. Ethnic cleansing, most empatically, *is* *not* *racism*.

> Lots of those nations hate the Jews and want to
> kill them or make them fifth-class citizens.

Exactly. In the real world, social change cannot occur; Germans, Russians, and such-like are overwhelmingly incapable of growth as humans. This necessarily justifies not only moving to a Land Without a People, but cleansing that land of the people that do happen to be there (but not really.) If the Israeli army needs to kill a few children, any rational observer can see that it does so to promote human rights.

I think we both support the state of Israel and what it's doing; we just have a difference of wording. :) We both yearn for a final solution to Arab opression of the Jewish race. Can't we be friends?

-------
You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

I said: "Are you seriously claiming that the concept of a Jewish state is inherently racist?" You answered: "Israel is predicated on racism no more than any other nation that expels those of a specific race in order to create a majority of another race is."

Now, pay attention, junior. I didn't ask if Israel was racist. I asked if the concept of a Jewish state was racist in itself. I ask again: Is the concept of a Jewish state racist? You are not free to claim without argument that the idea of a Jewish state is similar to colonial racism in its assumptions. The Jewish flight to Palestine, for all the early failures of Zionism (and they were many) was more than just a foreign adventure along British or Spanish lines.

As for your pious twittering about 'growth as humans,' I invite you to tell Iraqi, Syrian and Iranian Jews living in permanent exile abroad that they ought to hold a sit-in to get their homes and businesses back. The only difference between these exiles and the Palestinians is that, unlike the Arabs with the Palestinians, the middle-eastern Jews had someplace to go.

> Now, pay attention, junior. I didn't ask if Israel
> was racist. I asked if the concept of a Jewish
> state was racist in itself.

That's right, old timer -- hence the phrase "predicated on." See, when a man and a woman love something very much, they think about it in their brains. This is called a "concept." Sometimes things that people do in the world are thought about beforehand, and these actions are based on certain assumptions -- kinds of "concepts" -- called "predicates."

> You are not free to claim without argument that
> the idea of a Jewish state is similar to
> colonial racism in its assumptions.

Nor did I! This has nothing to do with colonialism. Sharon's good work in solving the Muslim Problem is no worse than, say, the extermination of Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. In both cases, it's helping to end the International Zionist Conspiracy (Al Qaedu); neither has to do with Colonialism. Both cleansings are thus justifiable.

> As for your pious twittering about 'growth as
> humans,' I invite you to tell Iraqi, Syrian and
> Iranian Jews living in permanent exile abroad
> that they ought to hold a sit-in to get their
> homes and businesses back.

Most wholeheartedly agreed! History has proven that passive resistance will never work. Only through guerilla warfare and collective punishment is lasting peace acheived.

> The only difference between these exiles and the
> Palestinians is that, unlike the Arabs with the
> Palestinians, the middle-eastern Jews had
> someplace to go.

Again, it's like you're reading my mind. *I'm on your side.* It is the G.d-given duty of TruJews to guard their majority in Israel. And you're right -- it's not like other countries fail to do unsavory things to innocent Jews. Knowing the culture of Palestinians, it's inevitable that they'll grow up to be killers. (We have the same problem with Negroes here in the States.)

Seriously, you're right on the money here. Keep fighting the good fight!

-------
You wanna play the blind man, go walk with a Shepherd. But me, my eyes are wide fuckin' open.

How could you two bastards??? The Palestinians, G-d bless their dainty little souls, are angelic sheep that have been cast in wolves' clothing by Jewish/Freemason fat cats!!! They only will for peace, sending offers friendship to the Israelis!!! But, alas, those cruel Jew-mongrels keep strapping explosives to them and blowing them up...

When will this tragic oppression end??? When will I no longer have to use three items of punctuation per sentence??? When, I ask you???

So satire is fine, as long as it's not directed at <insert issue, race, or ethnic group here>? Bullshit. You may not agree with what the author is implying (or what you think he's implying), but that doesn't make this an abuse of satire.

Considering Semites considered hands-off for satirical attack endorses the notion that they really are different from the rest of us, in exactly the sort of way that freaky Jewish conspiracy theorists espouse. It can only lead to more anti-Semitism, not less.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Semites are certainly not hands-off for satirical attack, but when dealing with such a controversial issue, shouldn't a satire be held to higher standards than a simple nonsensical piece? A truly skilled debater would not only provide his argument in humorous form but also refute any counterarguments -- otherwise, the piece becomes nothing more than a load of bull. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort was accomplished here.

The value of this article, and indeed of just about anything I've read on Adequacy, lies in its frontal assault on our genteel sensibilities. It is intended to fly in the face of consensus reality and offend us. Holding the article to a higher standard would completely emasculate it and run counter to its purpose.

That is what satire is. I don't suppose the Londoners of Swift's time enjoyed being identified as tantamount to baby eaters. A Modest Proposal is so well-known today to be almost cliche, but I have no doubt that it had a much greater and more visceral impact at the time it was written. Swift's essay could very easily have had its own critics disclaiming any value it might have had by calling it nonsensical.

The article, and satire in general, is intended to inflame controversy, not assuage it. If satire is restricted to safe topics, then satire has lost its value, and in fact has ceased to be.

As for the article being nothing more than a load of bull, let's think about that for a moment. The discussion prompted by the article focuses on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. That discussion is certainly valuable in its own right. However, the real issues presented in the article have passed virtually unremarked-upon. In my opinion, Israelis, Palestinians, anti-Semites, and Nazis are all incidental to the point the article is trying to make. After all, he didn't ask, "What should be done about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict." He asked, "How do I deal with Nazis in the workplace?"

That's the serious answer, such as it is.

I think Adequacy is brilliant and profane. In a free society there can be no sacred cows. On the other hand, sometimes, it's just funny to say the word 'heiffer'.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

The value of this article . . . . lies in its frontal assault on our genteel sensibilities.

true enough, but the ultimate effect of the article is of brass sarcasm. There's nothing expressed that the author hasn't already.

ultimately I liked the article simply because I was so thoroughly offended by it--it sparks a debate and arouses a few questions that all of us ought to be asking. (I hadn't read the previous article.)

but the power of irony lies in its more traditional conception: to teach by arguing a viewpoint opposite or contradictory to one's goal. that viewpoint is argued in such a way as to exaggerate the viewpoint's faults; the outcome is ideally an understanding of multiple sides of the issue and an opinion one way or another. generally Socrates is the most well-known proponent of this kind of irony.

After all, he didn't ask, "What should be done about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict." He asked, "How do I deal with Nazis in the workplace?"

there is irony in the article in the sense that the author wants to exaggerate himself as a totalitarian, shitty employer--because he may well try hard not to be a shitty employer or manager. And the article plays on popular sensitivities about "Nazism"--but he's already done both of these.

the author's a hack, and adequacy is at fault for letting him recycle his stories. the "workplace" and the "-ism" jokes were already done. he did well enough as far as inflaming controversy, but in large part by placing the burden on the reader to argue against a viewpoint (presumably pro-Israel) that was never even clarified positively or negatively.

Okay, so you mostly restated your previous point. If you noticed, I did not entirely disagree with you on the nature and purpose of satire. What I fail to see is why holding satire to a higher standard defeats its purpose. After all, a satire is merely one vessel to hold an argument -- why then, can we not hold it to the same standards as a serious paper?

A piece that makes as if only the Palestinians are suffering is as misleading as the piece that implies that all Palestinians are suicide bombers. There is a very fine line here between provoking thought and promoting hateful propaganda.

There is a very fine line. Inevitably, there will be people who misconstrue the intent of a satirical work and will read nothing more into it than what the words say. The risk is greater when the subject matter is so controversial and there are extremes of thought on either side. However, I think the value is greater in that circumstance, too.

Re-reading the article, I don't see how it could be reasonably viewed as hateful propaganda. Israel is a political entity, and the controversial actions it is taking are political actions. The actions may certainly be motivated by religious factors, but the political argument against them grows stronger to the extent that that is true.

I find little propaganda in the article, but there is some. It does suggest, for example, that pregnant women are being denied medical care. That can certainly be considered propaganda, especially if it is false, but I don't think it can be considered hateful unless it is motivated by hate and intended to engender hate. I don't think either is true.

I'm not going to defend the quality of the article because I've seen much better elsewhere. I don't think balance is what it needs to improve it, though. In fact, I think balancing the article would only serve to make it worse.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Sir, (none / 0) (#112)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 20th, 2002 at 05:41:27 PM PST

Please find a non-fraudulent myth, a less redundant adjective, or a style for your compositions that does not transcend the limits of your vocabulary.

Perhaps I can suggest a corn motif. Corn is decidedly underused as a metaphor for sick anti-Semitic propaganda, as I'm sure even a cursory examination of the facts will confirm.---
I have unprotected sex with multiple anonymous partners.

Just because the AIPAC has bought congress (Fortune magazine states they are the most powerful lobbyist group in congress) and our military, doesn't mean that the Zionist genocide is something to support.

There are approximately 500 combat-experienced officers in the Israeli army that have risked shame and prison by refusing to support the ongoing liquidation of the Palestinian people.

Don't throw out that "women and children" as victims shite, while Sharon is killing them for ethnic purity and profit.

Besides, if you want to live in a country where you can't make jokes about state funded terrorists like the Likud-land-grabbers, then move somewhere else.

And the facts to support your hateful paranoid conspiracy-theorist delusions are where? What's that? You left them in your other pants? Well naturally -- if there was any substance behind your ravings, they wouldn't be hateful paranoid conspiracy-theorist delusions, would they?

Do you by any chance have the chronicles of the Elders of Zion on your bookshelf?

Finally, Mr. "Punk-ass," Sir -- if you desire any bringing-on, let it be brung-on!

how tiresome. (none / 0) (#156)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Jul 25th, 2002 at 08:22:11 PM PST

I won't bother defending him/her to whom you have responded, because your argument is so transparent as to beg alms. or bread, like a flock of stubborn pigeons, too stupid to realize I'm ready to put the toe of my boot in one of their sides.

If you cared to notice, my message contained an accusation rather than an argument. In its transparency I took my cue from Chief Noise-Maker Saeb Erakat, so as to adopt a style you might comprehend. Your post, by contrast, was less an argument than verbal diarrhea.

P.S. Professing multiple personalities to "defend" each other does not significantly improve your credibility. Nor is kicking pigeons the best rebuttal strategy.

sorry, next time I kick pigeons, I'll make sure that I've previously been involved in their orgy of cooing.

but I didn't really kick any this time anyhow. (I didn't post anything with "punkass" in the title, but I did with "tiresome" in there.) in any case I didn't think that guy's post was so incredible as you seemed to.

There are approximately 500 combat-experienced officers in the Israeli army that have risked shame and prison by refusing to support the ongoing liquidation of the Palestinian people.

I have no idea about actual numbers, but Israeli newspapers have reported several times in the last year or so on this kind of phenomenon occurring within the country. and I don't even read papers from over there very often. I won't be bothered to prove it to you, this is the internet, not Research 101.

in other words, you were making transparent and flaky "arguments" or "accusations" as you would have it. so sit still, pigeon.

typical hypocrosy that's the world laughs at... (none / 0) (#160)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 27th, 2002 at 10:18:35 AM PST

The ethnic cleansing, land grabbing opportunists in Israel, and their supporters, like you, have long worn-out the effectiveness of accusing anyone who disagrees with them as "racist" or "anti-Jewish." Frankly, it's laughable.

The reality is that a huge number of Jews in Israel are against the illegal land-grabbing occupationists.

One only need read Israel's most popular newspaper paper, the "Haartz Daily" to realize that those in favor of "purging" most of the indigenous population by force, to get their land, are thought of as despicable.

Now, you want "support" for my "hateful paranoid conspiracy-theorist delusions?" Since you obviosly don't read the newspaper, I'll quote from an article by Dafna Linzer, of the
Associated Press in the Washington Post from two months ago, as the movement was getting started:

"Today, they are a group of 460 Israeli men, mostly officers, from different backgrounds who formulated a common opposition to Israel's presence in the territories - home to some 3 million Palestinians and more than 200,000 Jewish settlers."

They all refuse to serve. If you want me to paste or email you the whole article, I will.

Try looking in the mirror the next time you accuse anyone who faults you for supporting state-funded hatred by calling them anti-Jewish. It really makes you look stupid.

Naive liberal propaganda (none / 0) (#161)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Jul 27th, 2002 at 04:08:05 PM PST

If the jewish people didn't support Sharon, why on Earth did they elect him by such an enormous margin?

Ask the average israeli what he thinks of the arabs. I doubt he'll use words like 'oppressed' or 'unjust'. The arabs have long since worn out the sympathy of israel. Very few jews are opposed to the government's policies, despite what the western media's ongoing circus would have you believe this month.

Well... if anything can bring together a half-brained self-professed pseudo-Liberal and a brainless hatemonger, it's hatred of Israel.

The fact that we hear about dissenting Israelis is a credit to Israel more than anything. Know why we don't hear anything about Palestinians protesting Arafat and his terrorist cronies? Because they are silenced and/or murdered. Hmm, isn't it a little strange that *all* of Arafat's political opponents to date have either disappeared or "willingly stepped aside?"

So what the fuck is with the double standard? How come Israel, which has a long history of supporting your precious liberal standards (women's right, say), has to answer for more than Palestinians and the surrounding Arab world, who not only shit on these concepts but have you wipe their ass for them as well?

Don't hide behind your idiotic and worn out propaganda -- admit the truth. Your concern for Palestinian rights is but a hypocritical facade. You simply make a scapegoat of Israel and America for whatever goes wrong in your own worthless world.

It really makes you look stupid, and confirms that you don't have an argument.

Many Americans believe that Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Hillary Clinton have no right (constitutionally or otherwise) to take our money and send it to Sharon's racists in Israel.

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" alike in Congress may be equally willing to give American tax dollars away to support the racist thugs in Israel that are committing their crimes... as long as Sharon backers continue to keep up their lobbying kick-backs, that is.

One only need to go the AIPAC's website to see that they boast about being one of the most powerful lobbyist groups in Washington.

In fact, they are more powerful than the oil and steel lobbyists. In other words (to make it simple for you Mudillo) they pay our politicians *lots* of money. Are you going to deny this?

Fortunately, a large population of Jews in Israel are against the USA pumping money to those Likud scumbags. Americans are finally standing up against support of Sharon's terrorists as well, even in the face of people like you threatening to character assassinate them.

Again, don't try to change the subject by attacking the moral qualities of the Palestinian regime. No one here is calling for our tax money to go to them, and you know it, but needless to say, you are clearly desperate for anything to support your argument.

You hate America and are pissed that concerned citizens here, and all over the world are calling for an end to people like you demanding we give our hard-earned cash to Sharon's land-grabbing, hate-mongering scum-bags.

Sorry Mudillo, but I don't want you or Sharon to have my money. Send Sharon your own, it's your conscious. I have my own charities to give to.

The term "Sharon's ethnic cleansing" is about as appropriate in this discussion as "Arafat's ethnic cleansing." Simply because the latter accomplishes it with terror doesn't mean it's not the same thing. My vocabulary choice, meanwhile, is something I stand by. I have no other words for someone like you -- a hatemonger hiding behind one-sided half-truths.

As for AIPAC -- direct me to some credible statistics that show that it is more powerful and the oil and steel lobbyists (obviously AIPAC's "boasting" doesn't count). I can't claim to disprove these statements, but I do find them a little hard to believe.

In the meantime -- where, pray tell, is the opposition to residents of the US and Canada pumping money to Hamas and similar terrorist organizations? It's nearly universal knowledge that this takes place on a continuous basis. Shouldn't that be at least as big a concern as support for Israel?

The moral quality of the Palestinian regime is directly relevant to this debate. Discussing it does not consitute a red herring, but attempting to suppress such discussion does. I hear you screaming and raving about "Sharon's terrorists" and "Likud scumbags" as if they are the only ones to blame for the current situation. Moreover, you know full well that Sharon gained power because Israelis simply didn't know who to turn to after all their offers of peace were met with more carnage.

And finally, stop deluding yourself and others. America sends money to Israel because, as a characteristic superpower, it wants a foothold in the Middle East and Israel is its only choice.

As someone who claims not to be a racist, what would *your* policy for the Middle East be?

Sure Mudillo. I'm here for you. :) (none / 0) (#165)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 29th, 2002 at 12:30:58 PM PST

Since you're too lazy to look at the website of the group you called me a "hatemonger" for speaking of, I'm dropping it here for you:

http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html

Or maybe the website has been hacked by a band of evil "hatemongering" hackers, and your disbelief of my statement about the lobby is correct? Could the website be a tampered document!?? I think you're onto something.

Since you seem to disbelieve the AIPAC's website, here is the link to Fortune magazine's list of top 25 most powerful lobbyist groups. You'll see the AIPAC right up near the top, at number four.

http://www.fortune.com/lists/power25/index.html

Oh yeah, foolish me, "Fortune" magazine must also be in on the massive "hatemongering" campaign to stop Sharon's gang from their charitable pursuits. Lucky we have you around to point these racists out to us. *Phew*

In my opinion (that of a "hatemonger,") if you want to keep sending your personal money to Sharon's state-funded terrorists, that is up to you. If people in Canada or the USA want to send their personal money to Sharon or the extremists that oppose Sharon, that is up to them.

The bottom line is "don't demand me to send my money to either group." Americans should be free to send their money to anyone they please, just not by force through our taxes. I know that sounds radical to you, and that anyone who agrees must clearly be a "hatemonger" and a "racist."

You may send Sharon all your earnings for all I care. You state that he is the logical answer to Israel's problems because "Israelis simply didn't know who to turn to after all their offers of peace were met with more carnage."

By your definition would the slaughter of over 800 civilian men, women and children by forces under his command in 1982 when he was Defense Minister constitute "carnage?"

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/26062002-112406-2777r.htm

Since you "stand by" your use of the term "Sharon's ethnic cleansing" by stating that he does it without "terror," do you think the women and children he kills, instead of experiencing "terror" as they die, are comforted in their last breaths by the thought that they are sacrificing their lives for the benevolent Likud party?

Or is this just part of the Global hatemongering plan of world-wide press to overthrow the saintly Sharon and his merry band of peace-makers?

Perhaps there is some truth to your claim that politicians send billions of our tax dollars to Sharon as an attempt to gain a "foothold" in that region of the world.

America is the largest consumer of oil in the world. The wealth of the Middle-East economy is dependent on us. Those countries compete for our business, and we are naturally placed in the category of "VIP customer."

Giving Sharon and his thugs gun money to kill kids and bulldoze neighborhoods will not ensure good will with the people of the Middle-East.

You may scoff at Americans and others who stand up against this Sharon's scam, but people are starting to take notice, and the politicians are becoming more likely to fall in line with the wishes of their constituency, over that of lobbyist-bribes.

Maybe you should try to stop accusing everyone who opposes Sharon's state-funded murdering and land-grabbing of being "hatemongers" and try something a little more rational. This is the 3rd time I've said this, but that tactic of defending Sharon is way stale, and really makes you look stupid.

Try supporting the masses of Jews in Israel that are calling for an end to the expansion of the illegal settlements.

Try supporting the approximately 500 hundred Israeli soldiers who have chosen honor and dignity, at the risk of prison, over the choice of playing hired gun for Sharon's land-grab.

Try supporting the Jews of Israel that will die at the hands of Palestinian suicide bombers in retaliation attacks everytime the Likud party sends soldiers with bull-dozers to wipe out an ancient neighborhood, kick out all non-Jews, and put up a settlement.

Try supporting Americans who are calling to an end for tax money to be sent to extremists on either side of the issue.

Just to set the record straight, let's not rephrase my words for me, shall we? Do not attribute my calling you a hatemonger to AIPAC, nor imply that I somehow misrepresented their status as a lobbyist group. Do not speak for me things I never said -- such as the statement that Sharon's election was a "logical" solution (I believe that it was an act of desperation). Unless you are under the impression that it helps your credibility -- in that case, continue, as you need all the help you can get.

Where *do* Americans want to send their hard-earned cash? Chances are, back to their pockets, not to some strategic interest hell-knows-where. In that case, perhaps there's a little flaw with your system of government, your world position as a superpower, and your desire to control the destiny of the world. I personally have no objection to America as the global gendarme, since it supports a way of life that I accept (inasmuch as it is the lesser evil of the many, at least). You, however, seem at odds with your own government -- take it up with them. Do not place the blame for US support on AIPAC alone. Or, perhaps the all-powerful Free Masons are behind this?

Your understatement of "some truth" in American strategic interests won't help you. America wants oil, America wants to get its hands on Iraq. There is a lot of truth here. And I hardly think that "good will with the people of the Middle East" is any more than a useless buzzword after Sept. 11 and Afganistan. The majority of the Middle East despises America and you know it.

The killing of 800 Palestinians was, as in the article you linked, accomplished by Lebanese militia allied with Sharon. I call you a hatemonger because your use of such terms as "Sharon's terrorists" will be attributed instead to all Jews, already hounded around the world (even if this was not your intent, though I'm inclined to believe it was).

My opinion of you as a hatemonger is only strengthened by your failure to address the faults of Palestinian government and its terror campaign. Speaking of "retaliation" for Likud actions has lost all meaning. If we descend into the endless chain of retaliations, why not start in 1948 when Arab nations descended upon Israel the instant it was recognized by the UN? I seem to recall the slaughter of far more innocent Israelis (yes, women and children, sometimes entire settlements) during and since that time.

You again present a corrupt, skewed view of the issue. So maybe terrorist attacks occur only when a new neighbourhood is bulldozed? I don't recall reading about new settlements in the past little while, but where's the decline in suicide bombings?

Do not make as if Israel would have peace handed to it on a silver platter the instant they stopped building settlements and performing military incursions. It is perfectly clear that Palestinian terrorist factions have as their only goal the complete destruction of Israel, not peace.

You will, I suppose, again accuse me of "changing the subject," and again I will say that this IS the subject. Israel is no more the aggressor that the Palestinians; in the past while, it is the Palestinians who have been on an unrelenting offensive. If American money flows there at all, it should flow to Israel.

The "hatemonger" speaks!!! (none / 0) (#174)

by Anonymous Reader on Tue Jul 30th, 2002 at 07:53:28 PM PST

Um, to refresh your memory, you said,

"As for AIPAC -- direct me to some credible statistics that show that it is more powerful and the oil and steel lobbyists. I can't claim to disprove these statements, but I do find them a little hard to believe. "

So I did.

You said,

"Moreover, you know full well that Sharon gained power because Israelis simply didn't know who to turn to after all their offers of peace were met with more carnage."

Sounds like you thought the choice of Sharon was pretty logical to me?

Where have I "rephrased your words?"

You said,

"You, however, seem at odds with your own government -- take it up with them. Do not place the blame for US support on AIPAC alone. Or, perhaps the all-powerful Free Masons are behind this?"

FWIW, I've mailed my congressmen with my concerns. Thanks for the advice. I'm not familiar with the "Free Masons" though. Are they part of the massive global conspiracy against the benevolent Sharon and his warm and fuzzy "Likud Party" that you keep harping, er, I mean discussing?

I will agree with you that "there's a little flaw with our system of government." Our foreign policy is anti-American, anti-Constitutional, anti-Middle East and gives cause for the "majority of the Middle East" to despise us.

This is precisely why I am against politicians answering to oil lobbies and pro-Sharon lobbies(AIPAC), or any other lobby groups, instead of answering to the safety and well-being of the American people, and to the safety and well-being of people the world over.

You take offense, and "are inclined to think" I'm a "hatemonger" because I used the phrase "Sharon's terrorists."

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

ter·ror·ism Pronunciation Key (tr-rzm) n.

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Feel better now? If you are going to say that anyone who despises Sharon for his terrorist actions is guilty of calling all Jews around the world terrorists, you certainly need help.

*Sigh* You say,

"I don't recall reading about new settlements in the past little while, but where's the decline in suicide bombings?"

Since the election of Sharon in Feb. of 2001, 34 new settlements have been established.

Or are the Labor Party and the peace movement "Peace Now" in Israel "hatemonger" organizations too?

If you want to "descend into the endless chain of retaliations" let's descend to the years preceding the 1948 War of Independence (between 1939 and 1945) and examine the terrorist acts of Zionist leaders in Palestine.

There was the Haganah headed by Ben Gurion, the Irgun Z'vai Leumi headed by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang headed by Yitzhak Shamir. All specialized in inventing and committing a wide range of terrorism towards the British and towards non-Jewish civilians.

Israeli leaders are the Godfathers of terrorism in Palestine and in the Middle East. I'll send you several links describing details if you don't want to research it yourself.

You say,

"Do not make as if Israel would have peace handed to it on a silver platter the instant they stopped building settlements and performing military incursions."

Well, it would be a good place to start. Israel has decided to have two sets of laws in the territory it controls. I will support any solution that recognizes that all people have
equal rights regardless of ethnicity/religion.

*Hrmm, I wonder if that "equal rights" idea is going to make me more of a "hatemonger?"*

Your insinuation was that I denied rather than disbelieved your claims about AIPAC, and your statement was that I called you a hatemonger for that; neither is true. Since you evidently need a lesson in vocabulary, let me set you off on your quest for knowledge by noting that there is a difference between "not knowing who to turn to" and "making a logical choice." Your continued nitpicking on trifles does you credit.

Your anti-American foreign policy, my dimwitted friend, is what promotes your American way of life. Let's see just how long America remains a successful and rich superpower when it starts practicing an isolationist rather than a heartland-hinterland relationship with less wealthy nations. "Safety and well-being of the world over" -- how nice and peachy. I suggest you learn a little more about the world economy before trying to rework it through your congressman (was it Traficant?).

Dictionary definitions -- now you're just grasping at straws. You know perfectly well the world doesn't run to the dictionary every time it sees a controversial phrase, and that the term "Sharon's terrorists" is much more likely to be interpreted against Jews. If you are truly so naive, you need professional help; if, as I suspect, you are pushing your hateful little propaganda, then you need euthanasia.

It has been some year and a half since February 2001. I am referring to, oh say, the last 2-3 months of NON-STOP TERRORISM WITHOUT ANY NEW SETTLEMENTS BEING ESTABLISHED... hmm.

Once again a completely useless point -- not only were Zionist actions directed at the British, but it is a fact that Palestinians instigated riots and pogroms against Jews; the Haganah you speak of was formed as a self-defense movement. 1939-45? How about 1920, 1921, and 1929, when such events took place? How about the 1936 revolt where hundreds of Jews *and* Arabs opposed to the instigators were killed? Take your historical revisionism elsewhere.

Israel has two sets of laws now? How about Palestinians, with no laws at all? In light of the recent university bombing, the question of who really is the terrorist has once again been bloodily answered. I don't feel the need to seriously address your idiocy and hate any longer. Your half-truths, equivocations, and baseless conclusions do a poor job of hiding your hatred of Jews.

Mudillo is revealed. Ooops! (none / 0) (#176)

by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 06:27:11 PM PST

*Sigh*

You said,

"Your insinuation was that I denied rather than disbelieved your claims about AIPAC, and your statement was that I called you a hatemonger for that; neither is true."

You've thrown the terms "hatemonger" and "hateful" at me so many times in your recent posts (against my advice that it makes you look ignorant and hypocritical) that it's tough to keep track of why you've haphazardly thrown these terms out each time.

Regardless, to refresh your memory a second time, you said,

"As for AIPAC -- direct me to some credible statistics that show that it is more powerful and the oil and steel lobbyists. I can't claim to disprove these statements, but I do find them a little hard to believe."

You prefaced that statement with,

"I have no other words for someone like you -- a hatemonger hiding behind one-sided half-truths."

Sounds like you were "insinuating" that I was a "hatemonger" for telling a "half-truth?"

I showed you that your "disbelief" was unfounded, and that labeling me a "hatemonger" based upon your belief that I was "hiding behind one-sided half-truths" was inappropriate.

Instead of apologizing for your mistake, you continued to throw out the term "hatemonger," which is only cheapened when spouted from the mouths of hypocrites who don't understand the term.

You said,

"Your anti-American foreign policy, my dimwitted friend, is what promotes your American way of life."

Doesn't that contradict your statement "The majority of the Middle East despises America and you know it?" Making the Middle East despise us with a biased, anti-Constitutional foreign policy promotes the American way of life?

Wow. You are all over the place.

I'll repeat a quote from one of the most influential creators of the American Constitution (which outlines government foreign policy), Thomas Jefferson,

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

That's anti-American?

I tend to think that Jefferson's policy, as opposed to the present policy of illegally sending tax-payers money to regimes chosen by the most influential lobbyist groups, is a bit more "American," don't you?

Maybe I'm wrong, and revenge attacks by dissidents reacting to our politician's reckless gifting of money, training and arms to random countries on lobbyists orders, such as occurred on 9/11, are actually good for our economy. You must know something I don't?

Oh my goodness, you said,

"You know perfectly well the world doesn't run to the dictionary every time it sees a controversial phrase, and that the term "Sharon's terrorists" is much more likely to be interpreted against Jews."

So you really do believe that anyone who calls Sharon and his thugs "terrorists" is committing a moral crime, because it is "likely to be interpreted" as "all Jews are terrorists."

Then you said, acting upon your "suspicion" that the reason I used the term was not due to the facts I've presented, but that (once again), I am pushing "hateful propaganda," and that I should be "euthanized."

You have finally, clearly, without a doubt, shown that it is you who is the "hatemonger." A sick, twisted, malicious, contemptible person who accuses others of what you yourself undoubtedly are.

Free speech is dead by your rules, and anyone you "suspect" of speaking "hateful propaganda" (which you've proven to be a massive, arbitrary population of people) deserve nothing less than to be round up and murdered.

Perhaps you can make a list of unspeakable "controversial phrases?"

Well, you are a good fit for Sharon's Gestapo. You would do well to move to Israel, join his secret police, and round up, kill (or "euthanize") all the Palestinians you can.

You will be pleased to find that you can detain them, torture them and even kill them with nothing other than your unbiased, unfaltering "suspicions" to back you up.

Also, while you're at it, make a list of the tens of thousands of Israelis who protest against "Sharon's terrorists."

*Sigh* You said,

"It has been some year and a half since February 2001. I am referring to, oh say, the last 2-3 months of NON-STOP TERRORISM WITHOUT ANY NEW SETTLEMENTS BEING ESTABLISHED... hmm."

The all-caps is a nice touch, but I guess I have to spell it out for you. "Since the election of Sharon in Feb. of 2001, 34 new settlements have been established," does not mean that the 34 settlements were built exclusively on or before Feb. 2001.

It means they were built between that date and now... Get it? That time period includes the last 2-3 months. I know, subtraction is tough.

You said,

"Once again a completely useless point -- not only were Zionist actions directed at the British, but it is a fact that Palestinians instigated riots and pogroms against Jews; the Haganah you speak of was formed as a self-defense movement."

A useless point huh? Yeah, you're right, the following info has been well-documented, but the Haganah was merely a noble "self-defense movement," not a *gasp,* militant group of thugs guilty of countless war crimes.

From, http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/arab-israeli-war.html

"The Haganah, and subsequently the IDF, overran large Arab-populated areas--some four hundred villages and towns--whereas Arab forces conquered or overran fewer than a dozen Jewish settlements in the course of the war.
In retrospect, it is clear that what occurred in 1948 in Palestine was a variety of ethnic cleansing of Arab areas by Jews. It is impossible to say how many of the 700,000 or so Palestinians who became refugees in 1948 were physically expelled, as distinct from simply fleeing a combat zone. What is certain is that almost all were barred by the Israeli government decision of June 1948 and, consequently, by IDF fire, from returning to their homes or areas. Similarly, almost all of the four hundred
or so Arab villages overrun and depopulated by Israel were in the course of 1948 or immediately thereafter razed to the ground, partly in order to prevent the refugees from returning."

Take your historical revisionism elsewhere.

I don't feel the need to seriously address your idiocy and hate any longer. Your half-truths, equivocations, and baseless conclusions do a poor job of hiding your hatred of Jews, and your hatred of anyone else opposed to state-funded terror.

Doesn't that contradict your statement "The majority of the Middle East despises America and you know it?" Making the Middle East despise us with a biased, anti-Constitutional foreign policy promotes the American way of life?

Not in the least. American material success at home doesn't really come from nowhere, does it? I repeat, check on the way economy works before making yourself look stupid again.

The all-caps is a nice touch, but I guess I have to spell it out for you. "Since the election of Sharon in Feb. of 2001, 34 new settlements have been established," does not mean that the 34 settlements were built exclusively on or before Feb. 2001.

Oh, and where exactly does it say that the settlements were built recently? You are assuming more than I, for my assumption is based on the fact that new "illegal" settlements have not received *any* attention in *any* media source in the recent period I referred to, which is certainly different from a year ago (when these settlements were probably at the peak of construction).

Your statements on the Haganah, like most of your half-truths, is equivocal. The fact that the Haganah enjoyed more military success than the Arabs (who had a history of disorganization and being at each others' throats) says *nothing* about who initiated the conflict. Meanwhile your one-sided sources are balanced and contradicted by numerous other one-sided sources arguing the opposite viewpoint. Who is to say we believe one and not the other?

Accusations of you pushing your propaganda are only supported by your melodramatic bullshit about killing innocent Palestinian lambs that you claim I would enjoy. In the future, I also recommend obtaining a vocabulary of your own, and perhaps a little extra points of IQ would help. Or, in your case, a lot.

When's the next Holocaust Revisionists bi-monthly meeting?

Let the hate fly Mudillo!!! Yeah! ;) (none / 0) (#178)

by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 03:37:58 PM PST

Take a deep breath Mudillo, then attempt to explain what these two phrases mean,

"Not in the least. American material success at home doesn't really come from nowhere, does it?"

After that logical and grammatical car-crash, you said,

"I repeat, check on the way economy works before making yourself look stupid again." I appreciated the laughs, but please stop hogging all my opportunities to reveal you as the fool you are.

Now, after trying to decipher the meaning of the phrase "American material success at home doesn't really come from nowhere, does it?" I was forced to hazard a guess and presume that you are implying that American "material wealth" comes in part from supporting Sharon.

How supporting Sharon leads to "material wealth" in America is beyond me. Again, I can see how it may have led to 9/11, but that didn't exactly get our economy rolling did it?

I had pointed this out to you already, but perhaps the synapses misfired again, and it slipped from your memory and/or you forgot to "check on the way economy works" yesterday.

Tell me what your reference is when you "check on the way economy works," then get back to me.

You said,

"You are assuming more than I, for my assumption is based on the fact that new "illegal" settlements have not received *any* attention in *any* media source in the recent period I referred to, which is certainly different from a year ago (when these settlements were probably at the peak of construction)."

My advice for you is to do a minimal amount of research before blurting out ignorant statements. Maybe even read a newspaper now and then.

It took me one minute to find this. Looks like the charitable Likuds hadn't quite "completed their construction" a year ago at all. Your laziness, coupled with the hypocrisy of your accusations is astounding.

One must admire your tenacity to never let the facts stand in the way of your hateful agenda.

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree at this point. We'll never see eye to eye.

You've expressed that you would murder (or "euthanize" as you put it) anyone who publicly attacks Sharon by referring to his regime as "Sharon's terrorists."

If you controlled the universe (under "Mudillo's Ministry of Information" I suppose), using the phrase "Sharon's terrorists," based upon your *extremely* broad "suspicions," could be defined as "hateful little propaganda" and punishable by death.

Hitler would have done well with a pupil like you by his side doling out that special kind of justice that you speak so highly of.

It was an appropriate way to demonstrate to all the true meaning behind the word "hatemonger" that you misuse so often.

In the future, I also recommend obtaining a vocabulary of your own, and perhaps a little extra points of IQ would help. Or, in your case, a lot.

Yet again, you truly are a dumb fuck. American material success comes from a heartland-hinterland relationship with poorer nations. Here I note that, aside from a poor understanding of real grammar, you seem to have an obsession with Sharon, attributing all of my comments to him. Perhaps this is a sexual attraction?
I could say that "houses in Jewish settlements" is not really the same as "new settlements," but what's the use? It'll just send you into another bout of verbal diarrhea.
Correction, I mentioned that I would euthanize YOU, which you again managed to attribute to Sharon. I would gladly engage in a serious discussion with intelligent and objective debaters who support a view different from mine; you, unfortunately, do not represent their number in any way.
Hey, psst -- the last two sentences of this post are a good thing to copy and repost to cover the fact that you have nothing to say.

Quick! Someone get his pacifier!!!! (none / 0) (#180)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 01:49:28 PM PST

"Yet again, you truly are a dumb fuck," speaketh Mudillo.

--I guess this is how you "gladly engage in a serious discussion with intelligent and objective debaters who support a view different from mine." Do you stomp your feet, ball up your hands and cry too?

Oops, I forgot, I'm a "dumb fuck," and don't qualify as an "intelligent and objective debater" of your caliber. :)

What does the following statement have to do with sending tax money to support Israel's current regime, or anything at all previously discussed?

I've twice quoted the foreign policy I support, so eloquently spoken by Thomas Jefferson. Implying that I support an isolationist foreign policy shows that you a either ignorant or deceitful (don't worry, I don't want you euthanized for either).

You said,

"Here I note that, aside from a poor understanding of real grammar, you seem to have an obsession with Sharon, attributing all of my comments to him. Perhaps this is a sexual attraction?"

Where shall I start?

Thanks for pointing out my poor grammar, but isn't that really just more sour grapes?

You point out *my* obsession with Sharon, after, on several occasions, you have *rabidly* attacked me for criticizing him.

Then you pull that odd "sexual attraction" question out of left field. If this is not a clear case of someone projecting their own hidden thoughts upon a stranger, then I don't know what is. Can anyone say "Freudian slip?"

You said,

"if, as I suspect, you are pushing your hateful little propaganda, then you need euthanasia."

How dare I presume that you would be willing to murder *everyone* you "suspected" of pushing "hateful little propaganda," instead of only me.

I guess I jumped to conclusions when I deduced from your psychotic and hateful statement, that you were an equal-opportunity "euthanizer."

You said,

"I could say that "houses in Jewish settlements" is not really the same as "new settlements,"

You could say that, but we both know (because I've educated you) that under Sharon, 34 new settlements have gone up, and that the construction of these was not halted 2-3 months ago, as you tried to profess.

Here's another link to help you get over the "denial" you're experiencing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,715564,00.html

Finally, because I can't resist sending you off into another red-faced, sputtering tantrum...

I would gladly engage in a serious discussion with intelligent and objective debaters who support a view different from mine; you, unfortunately, do not represent their number in any way. Hey, psst -- the last two sentences of this post are a good thing to copy and repost to cover the fact that you have nothing to say.

Well tickle me pink, but don't you have just the cutest foreign policy conception! If Your Imbecility would recall, my statement was part of an answer to your question of why other nations hate yours. And the answer isn't exactly "Sharon, Sharon, Sharon and his filthy Zionist scum-mongrels!!!"

I rabidly attacked you for your poorly hidden agenda of anti-Jewish hatred. This is also what's meant by "your hateful little propaganda," and yes, I would gladly euthanize anyone who follows such a doctrine.

The expansion of existing settlements has nothing to do with the construction of new settlements within the last 2-3 months, which was the issue here. Prove to me that new settlements were established during that period and I'll back off. Honest.

For now, however, you are and remain little more than a dumb fuck.

Does June of 2002 go back more than "2-3&quot (none / 0) (#184)

by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:48:38 PM PST

Mudillo says,

"Well tickle me pink, but don't you have just the cutest foreign policy conception!

Never really thought of describing Jefferson's and George Washington's idea's on foreign policy as "cute," but... as long as your staying with the program and learning, I won't penalize you for poor adjectives.

You say,

"If Your Imbecility would recall, my statement was part of an answer to your question of why other nations hate yours."

To clarify that we're on the same page, we're both speaking about your the following statement?:

Especially after I've made it clear that your reasons for accusing me of uttering "hateful little propaganda" were unfounded.

Remember the "Fortune Magazine" website and the accusations of "half-truths"? I'm still waiting for my apology btw.

It's disturbs me that you continue to say,

"I would gladly euthanize anyone who follows such a doctrine."

When these thoughts enter your head, ask yourself, "What day is it? What's my name? Where do I live?" I read somewhere that they are good "grounding" exercises to take people in the throes of psychotic fits back down to earth.

"The expansion of existing settlements has nothing to do with the construction of new settlements within the last 2-3 months, which was the issue here. Prove to me that new settlements were established during that period and I'll back off. Honest.
For now, however, you are and remain little more than a dumb --->fuck.<---"

Okay, before you read this, have mummy lock you in the special room with the padded walls of soothing colors...

"Jun 29, 2002

44 NEW SETTLEMENT OUTPOSTS ESTABLISHED SINCE 2001 ELECTIONS
Peace Now: "Ben Eliezer Responsible"
A new survey conducted by Peace Now has revealed that since the elections of February 2001 and up to the present time some 44 new settlement sites have been established in the West Bank. Nine of these new outposts were erected in the period March - ===>JUNE 2002.<==="

http://www.peacenow.org/shalomachshav/settlements0602.html

There's even a special map on the website for you to look at all the pretty new settlements, and dates of creation.

Wait! Maybe "Peace Now" is one of the Jewish parts of the top secret world-wide "agenda of anti-Jewish hatred?!!!!"

Hey! Easy!! Nurse!!! He's hyper-ventilating!!! Make sure to remind him of his "I'll back off, Honest" comments once he's sedated!!!!

;)

about the meaning of time-periods... (none / 0) (#186)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:38:03 PM PST

...or rather the lack thereof.

> Nine of these new outposts were erected in the period March - ===>JUNE 2002.<==="

They were also erected in the period March 2002 - January 2034, but that doesn't mean the Israelis invented time-travel. So, this quote, however true it might be, doesn't fit the "2-3 month" that Mudillo asked for, because they all could be build in March. (Maybe the map does, I can't read RTF at the moment.)
I just wanted to point that out because I don't want you to get "fat and lazy" only because you seem have the upperhand regarding facts/objectivity/intelligence/(and even humor), which indeed you do.

Good find. (none / 0) (#187)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 08:54:11 PM PST

Luckily, the RTF does have the dates on it. I just glanced at it, and it looks like 11 settlements have been started since June 2002.

I'm glad you pointed that ambiguity out, because we know "Mr. Angry-Pants" would have been all over it.

This link has pictures of the new settlements, and a "Date of Discovery" written into each link:

http://www.indymedia.org.il/imc/israel/webcast/31506.html

There was also this blurb on the "Arab Association for Human Rights" website:

"An Approval of 14 New Jewish Towns and More Demolition Warrants-(July 22, 2002).

Al-Ittihad's Monday edition reported that the government had approved in its meeting on Sunday the establishment of 14 new Jewish compounds in the Galilee and the Negev. Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon said: "it is a national need, and establishing new towns is aimed to ensure land for the next generation; and if we don't live on this land others will !!.

The newspapers also revealed that the 14 compounds are the first stage of a project, which will include 60 compounds in different places, and every one will include 200-500 apartments."

So now the estimate balloons from 36 to 44, AND we have credible organizations like the "Arab Association for Human Rights" and heavily politicized NGO's too. Why, there's practically hardly any Palestinians left on the West Bank at all!

Well, forgive, me I was SO wrong. Evidently such objective sources as these and the "Digital Intifada" and Hamas websites (which you'll cite next, I expect) are 100% correct. Gee, I guess I'll also have to believe that the Holocaust never happened, and that Palestine was a land of milk and honey before the Jews came...

I guess that other forgery, when the Palestinians were filmed videotaping fake funerals was actually true too! The Israelis must have substituted their Mossad agents for the dead to deceive the world. And I'll bet they were also behind that ship loaded with arms and explosives headed for Arafat's men! Why, maybe they even stage suicide bombings to frame the Palestinian angels!!!

I renounce all my support for those Jewish freaks, who are fanatical enough to blow themselves up just to lay blame on the Palestinians. To think that someone could be so vicious!

Hurting bad. Hugging good. Hurting bad. Hugg... (none / 0) (#189)

by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 11:16:34 PM PST

Apology accepted.

You're a nut-job, and I love nut-jobs. Some of my best friends are *special* people.

Unfortunately, even though you and I are friends now, I can only do so much for you.

We've had the "lazy" talk, and I don't want to nag, but I did put the websites in front of you once before didn't I?

Now, I warned you about blurting angry things out before you do a little research didn't I? Clicking on the links I sent you wouldn't have been too hard now would it have?

At this point, you have to help yourself.

Both links to the settlements pages, one estimating 34 (not "36") and the other estimating 44, came from the *same* "Peace Now" website, but from articles written at different times of the year.

This means, in the year 2002, between March 3rd and June 29th, 10 new settlements were established, that's all.

Go ahead, click on them yourself. That-a-boy. See. Feel better sport?

You said,

"Well, forgive, me I was SO wrong. Evidently such objective sources as these and the "Digital Intifada" and Hamas websites (which you'll cite next, I expect) are 100% correct. Gee, I guess I'll also have to believe that the Holocaust never happened, and that Palestine was a land of milk and honey before the Jews came..."

Your mind is in the bad place now. Come back. Let's go to the good places again? Good boy.

Now, "Peace Now" is not affiliated in any way with "Hamas Websites," or the "Digital Intifada" websites. These are just bad tricks in your head right now. They will pass.

I want you to stay away from filing your head with the ramblings that fill up the last three paragraphs of your post. Remember our "grounding exercises" when you start to slip.

We don't want you going anywhere that brings on the "euthanize" voice, now do we?

The Palestinian Holocaust (none / 0) (#149)

by Anonymous Reader on Mon Jul 22nd, 2002 at 04:17:58 PM PST

Ariel Sharon is the new Hitler. Zionists (I don't mean all Jews) are like the German Nazis of the 40's. They're racists, they steal the land of their neighbours, deport them and kill them. What's the difference between a Nazi and a Zionist? A: 60 Years. Uncle Sam's TVs didn't show many Jenin Massacre videos , but in Europe we've not censorship. (Sorry, I've forgotten you live in the country of the Liberty, and all that crap, :P ). That images showed the Zionists are as criminals as the Nazis were. For the flamers, a clue: I'm a troll and a son of a bitch, ok, but I'm not a Nazi. In fact I think the Nazis were the worst criminals of the History and I'm not a Commie. Stalin, Pol Pot & Co. were a criminals too.

Humans in general are like the German Nazis of the 40's. They're racists, they steal the land of their neighbours, deport them and kill them. What's the difference between a Nazi and a Human? A: Nothing

Why do people continue to invoke Naziism as though it were some special nastyness ? Humans have been killing each other and taking each others land for thousands and thousands of years, and yet the unfortunate Nazis seem to get put in a special category of evil. Admittedly they used the techniques of mass production to create the holocaust, but the Armenian genocide by the Turks was on a similar scale, and Stalin's treatment of the Kulaks was not much better.

I have said it before and I will say it again. Murdering innocent people is wrong. It does not matter if you are a Jew, a Nazi, an American pilot in Afghanistan or what. Just stop killing innocent people. In the words of Rodney King "can't we all just get along ?"

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

Thanks for your story. I have to tell you, though, that I found one of your comments highly disturbing:

We went to a steakhouse which, despite the fact that it serves alcohol, is a pretty decent place to eat.

Please tell me you aren't one of those dirty, self-righteous teetotallers as it would require me to revise my high opinion of you substantially downward. While I myself am not drinking right now, it is for a specific reason and not because I despise lovely, lovely alcohol. So set my mind at rest already, would you? Many thanks.

Sharon is quire possibly the worlds worst terrorist with the best PR reps.

Sharon won't stop until there has been total genocide of Arab people in Isreal. And who is funding these actions? Oh yeah! The US govmt.

Naziism my ass. Everyone knows the Nazi party is bad. Idiotic non-researched one sided "journalism" by right wingers who wouldn't know a terrorist from their ass from a hole in the ground are the real problem.

Also Mein Kampf, and the Communist Manifesto are decent reads and if you're secure in your political stance there is no danger in reading them.

Ps. Your spying on this person is illegal and you can (if you're "tireless efforts" are caught) serve jail time for invading the privacy of some one who just happens to like Rusty Wallace.

Thank you for that scintillating insightful analysis. Have you read Orwell's Animal Farm ?

Whilst the end results of Naziism were bad most people would agree, the Nazis themselves were for the most part ordinary Germans with a bit of a chip on their shoulder about the Treaty of Versailles.

Nazi policies got thousands of ordinary Germans back to work, and created the Autobahn system, still in use today.

Whilst in no way supporting or condoning the racist atrocities of the Nazi regime, I feel it is important to stress that the Nazis were just another political movement. If you demonize them, you allow yourself to distance yourself from the possibility that they might rise again.

It is not black and white. For many Germans the Nazi party was a ray of hope. A party like that does not sieze power against the wishes of the majority.

So whilst you may "know" that Nazis are "bad" you would be doing yourself and the rest of the world a favor if you did a little bit of research yourself.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective
companies.
Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org.
The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most
Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source
Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part
of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written
permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by
the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to
legal@adequacy.org.